Originally posted by Beniboybling Well, the Son's presence was balanced out by the Daughter. When she died the planet fell out of balance, and it was implied the entire galaxy would as well. Not that we can really tell considering the Force was already out of balance.

With all of the Force Wielders dead, the imbalance in Mortis disappears. ( But in the temporal universe the Force is still out of balance. )

Introductory documentary for VHS A New Hope Special Edition:
"[...] Which brings us up to the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe..."

And I think he does a similar explanation one of in the Making of documentaries of the PT.

He also says is balance between good and evil on numerous occasions as well:

"The overriding philosophy in Episode I—and in all the Star Wars movies, for that matter—is the balance between good and evil."

-George Lucas, Star Wars: The Making of Episode I, 1999

"I wanted to have this mythological footing because I was basing the films on the idea that the Force has two sides, the good side, the evil side, and they both need to be there. Most religions are built on that, whether it's called yin and yang, God and the devil—everything is built on the push-pull tension created by two sides of the equation. Right from the very beginning, that was the key issue in 'Star Wars.'"

-George Lucas, Los Angeles Times, 2002

I don't think its fair to cherry pick sources. Especially when a Lucas helmed animation, supports the above.

If I where to attempt to interpret George's meaning (if its to be considered consistent) I'd say that imbalance is an excess of dark side i.e. evil, but the two are not synonymous. The Son is an embodiment of the dark side for example, but he's not evil - in fact he's beloved of the Father and Daughter. So its possible to do away with the Sith and evil in the universe (an excess of the dark side) and still have the dark side present.

That's really just semantics in the end, though. If winning is defeating evil and making sure its power no longer applies, the sense in which the Dark Side is 'still there' is pretty vague. We're not really interested in immaterial concepts in the films- it's the people we look at. Every single Dark Sider we've seen in the films needs to go- and it's the good guys that need to get rid of them. On the idea that the Dark Side has an existence in the cosmos- which we can see, for example on Dagobah, and it's not as if the Jedi nuke the planet or anything- what we certainly see is that it should never be embodied in people. Else- suffering.

The problem is when people take GL saying 'balance between good and evil' as meaning equal amounts of both, whereas as we can see from the films, it's really about good guys defeating evil, in whatever its current embodiment is (as TFA repeated). Balance is achieved when evil is defeated. I'm not really sure what 'destroying the Dark Side/evil' could even be beyond that unless you are at the end of a Japanese RP and its time to kill god and remake the universe, or some such thing. But what is desirable in the films is that the good guys win and create a world of balanced symbiosis and not evil parasitism.

The Clone Wars arc complicated what is a simple thing- good guys defeat bad guys. Really, just keep it to that. The sense in which there could ever be 'too much' Light Side is so metaphysical, vague and, based on what we see on film, ridiculous as to hardly be worth considering. Light Side is the good guys. The good guys keep it balanced. The Dark Side is the bad guys. They keep messing the balance up. That's literally what the films show us.

__________________

"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"

Nah, TCW gave it depth. It demonstrated that you can't "other" the dark side as some distanced evil that the good guys need to destroy. But that it's actually a part of you that needs to be confronted and acknowledged.

I find that a lot more naunced, the alternative is too dogmatic if not naive. The ying and yang concept, that good and evil define each other and can't exist without each other, also makes a lot more sense in regards to balance.

Nonetheless this is very much a question of opinions and interpretation, and I'm happy to keep it that way.

EDIT: And if you consider Sith to be an excess of darkness, it makes sense that they are agents of imbalance, whereas Yoda though an agent of light, has a dark side, but he rejects its control over him, ergo he is balanced.

And an excess of light isn't that hard to get ones head around, the light is all about peace and serenity, and yet the passions and emotion the dark side embody are an important part of anyone's character or any society. Imagine if we couldn't be passionate about things? That would suck.

Opinion away, of course. But personality I don't call throwing out a few unsupported maxims 'depth'. I also don't think the films ever really showed the Jedi as fanatical in that sense (though it does seem to be a very common interpretation people have, like the Jedi are the Knights Templar or some such thing, which is very far indeed from what I think GL showed). Like I say, they don't nuke Dagobah; they aren't holding inquisitions to destroy all in contact with the evil heresy.

But when the Dark Side shows itself, it has to be stopped. It's basically why the Jedi are there- and why they are needed back in TFA.

EDIT: And whoever said the Light Side was only about peace and serenity? That's the EU's blunt force interpretation coming in there. Light Side isn't Vulcan-esque denial of emotions- it just means you are in control of the emotions and not the other way around- because you are in balance. As specified, Jedi can feel love. We see Obi-Wan get angry, but he is its master, not the other way around.

The Dark Side isn't feeling emotion, it is letting emotion control you. Not feeling anger- giving into it.

The Light Side is shown as what is desirable, the Dark Side as what is to be avoided. Remember it's not just the Jedi on the Light Side- though they embody it more directly. ALL of the good guys are there. Your Han Solos and your Poe Damerons- and they are not wanting for passion.

__________________

"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"

Originally posted by Ushgarak Opinion away, of course. But personality I don't call throwing out a few unsupported maxims 'depth'. I also don't think the films ever really showed the Jedi as fanatical in that sense (though it does seem to be a very common interpretation people have, like the Jedi are the Knights Templar or some such thing, which is very far indeed from what I think GL showed). Like I say, they don't nuke Dagobah; they aren't holding inquisitions to destroy all in contact with the evil heresy.

But when the Dark Side shows itself, it has to be stopped. It's basically why the Jedi are there- and why they are needed back in TFA.

EDIT: And whoever said the Light Side was only about peace and serenity? That's the EU's blunt force interpretation coming in there. Light Side isn't Vulcan-esque denial of emotions- it just means you are in control of the emotions and not the other way around- because you are in balance. As specified, Jedi can feel love. We see Obi-Wan get angry, but he is its master, not the other way around.

The Dark Side isn't feeling emotion, it is letting emotion control you. Not feeling anger- giving into it.

The Light Side is shown as what is desirable, the Dark Side as what is to be avoided. Remember it's not just the Jedi on the Light Side- though they embody it more directly. ALL of the good guys are there. Your Han Solos and your Poe Damerons- and they are not wanting for passion.

Never said they are, but "everything dark side is evil and must be destroyed" as an interpretation suggests they should be.

And I would definitely agree that as enemies of the Sith the Jedi are agents of balance, just like the Daughter was on Mortis. But that doesn't mean they are as you say on some crusade to eradicate the dark side from the universe entirely, just an excess of it.

And the light side is about peace and serenity, yeah Obi Wan gets angry, and Jedi can feel passion, but does Kenobi use his that anger to call on the light side? No. Those emotions are part of a Jedi, part of people, but not part of the light side, they are aspects of the dark side.

And the dark side isn't a philosophy, being Sith is about giving in to your emotions, the dark side is just an aspect of the Force that arguably exists in all living things.

So again my point is that good guys are more complex and far less pure that this hard and fast distinction between light and dark implies, they all have their light and dark sides. So branding the dark side as something 'other' that is to be avoided is essentially to ignore a part of yourself.

Star Wars is a story about clear good/evil distinctions- black hats and white hats. That's how GL always talked about it and wanted it.

You say that the light side is just peace and serenity. That's not in the films. Like I say, it's an EU assumption. What we see in the films are good guys with a sensible range of emotions. All we are told is that the Dark Side- no, not the Sith; the Dark Side is talked of in general with these things (there is no specific philosophy assigned to the Sith at all, because they are never explained, which is always a problem))- comes from giving in to your emotions. This is said specifically-- 'Don't give into hate; that is the path to the Dark Side.'

No-one ever says "Use just the right amount of the Dark Side". It's about rejection of letting it conquer you.

Absolutely everything about the plot and thrust and meaning of the films- of the entire Star Wars story, and the behaviour shown by all the characters within- is about defeating evil, which is synonymous with the Dark Side.

The balanced universe is the one where evil is defeated. The Dark Side has never been shown as anything other than something that must be stopped at all costs.

Honestly, you just stretch credibility if you watch Star Wars and don't get the impression that the Dark Side is evil. All the people associated with the Dark Side are evil. Everything the Dark Side does is evil. Everything associated with the Light Side is good. It's wilfully obtuse not to see that.

__________________

"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"

Originally posted by queeq Introductory documentary for VHS A New Hope Special Edition:
"[...] Which brings us up to the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe..."

For one thing, he never mentions balance at all in that quotation ( or "light", for that matter ). But it looks as though you're equating the light and dark sides with good and evil. Unfortunately, taking the above quote literally is a non-starter - because doing so makes no sense at all. Doing away with the Sith does not somehow magically remove evil from the universe. Not only is there an entire galaxy full of various evil characters ( not to mention some kind of Imperial remnant ), but the sapient capacity for evil remains unaffected by the events of ROTJ. Palpatine and the Empire are the standard bearers of evil, not the totality of evil itself; defeating them merely removes evil from a place of primacy, as opposed to removing it from the universe wholesale. Any time the post-ROTJ period has been depicted in any medium ( including the old EU, the new-canon EU, or Episode VII ), there has always been evil.

Originally posted by queeq
And again, we see Lucas' lack of balance: he keeps changing his mind.

To assume that he actually changed his mind here is to assume that he literally believed that killing Palpatine magically rendered the universe free of evil or even the capacity for evil. That seems... unlikely.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
On the idea that the Dark Side has an existence in the cosmos- which we can see, for example on Dagobah, and it's not as if the Jedi nuke the planet or anything- what we certainly see is that it should never be embodied in people.

But it's always going to be embodied in people, and other life forms. As you said:

Originally posted by Ushgarak If winning is defeating evil and making sure its power no longer applies, the sense in which the Dark Side is 'still there' is pretty vague.

It's a part of the Force. It doesn't disappear if the Sith cease to exist. It continues to be generated by living things as a part of the living Force. Evil's power, such as it is, will always "apply" regardless of whether or not there are dark side Force adepts around.

Originally posted by Ushgarak The problem is when people take GL saying 'balance between good and evil' as meaning equal amounts of both, whereas as we can see from the films, it's really about good guys defeating evil, in whatever its current embodiment is (as TFA repeated). Balance is achieved when evil is defeated.

The Sith are only the most prominent embodiment of evil, not the only embodiment. "Defeating evil" in all its manifestations never literally happens. The Sith, on the other hand, can be defeated - and that returns the galaxy to the default situation of a natural balance between good and evil.

See, again, you are going for intangibles here that really don't matter- mostly irrelevant really. The Light and Dark sides are part of the Force, sure, but the only way that is ever relevant for us, in any way at all, is in ho that relates to their representation by people. And in that respect, all we ever see- absolute 100% not contradicted- is that the Light Side is good and the Dark Side is evil, and those who have the most power with the Dark Side-which in the original films are the Sith- must be destroyed. Yes, it may well continue to be embodied in people. And this will continue to be a very bad idea and such people must always be stopped.

The balanced galaxy we are shown is one with the Light Side completely triumphant and the Dark Side completely defeated. This is the 'balance' between good and evil. Evil exists, evil goes on existing, but it is good that we must be overwhelmingly favouring; it is evil that destroys balance.

To show one of my points- you say:

"It doesn't disappear if the Sith cease to exist."

To which my answer is- so what? Who cares, if its not being embodied in any way which has power? It's literally irrelevant at that point. Like I said, the existence of the Dark Side in this form is vague; it is taking things to a philosophical level that is so far detached from any worthwhile analysis of film events as to be not worth it.

I'm not really sure what your last comment is getting at at all. I said 'current embodiment' which clearly implies more than one over time, which TFA stated directly. And I will remind you that GL directly and unequivocally stated that balance is restored by getting rid of evil in the universe. Sure, we don't have to overdo it in taking that literally- he doesn't mean the entire concept is annihilated from the cosmos- but it does reinforce the basic point here. He talks of 'dark forces' that destroy the balance of the cosmos- there has never, ever been anything approaching a 'light force' that could do the same, because all the light ever does is aim to restore the balance. What there has never been in the SW story, at any point, ever, is any suggestion or demonstration that the Light Side could ever be a problem in this cosmic equation.

The Light Side is represented by the good guys. They are the ones who do things right. And to remind again: there can be no balance without the Jedi- the champions of the Light Side. They are the ones bringing balance. With their opposite number, the Sith, it's the other way around- the Sith must be destroyed for there to be Balance. So if the champions of the Light Side must exist for balance, and the champions of the Dark must be destroyed for balance, what does that tell you? The connection between the Light Side and balance is so staggeringly obvious that, as I say, it is being wilfully obtuse to deny this. If all we ever see is the Light Side trying to keep the balance and the Dark Side trying to destroy it, then what possible tangible or useful definition or viewpoint can there possibly be other than to say that Balance is represented by the Light side? That is the entirety of the presentation. All that stuff about evil/dark side still literally existing in the balanced cosmos- well, sure. But for any practical purpose- irrelevant. The 'natural balance between good and evil' appears to be one where evil is defeated and good has all the power. Well- that's exactly what it should be. It's only a mistake to see balance as some sort of equal sharing between the two. As we see that evil keeps messing the balance up, that is clearly not the case. Allowing evil such power would leave no hope for balance.

So- the Light Side is represented by good guys. The Dark Side is represented by bad guys. The good guys defeat the bad guys- balance is achieved. Evil might not be literally destroyed but it is defeated, and that is highly significant. And that evil always - always- comes from the Dark Side... because the two are synonymous. Balance is when that evil has no power. Allowing it any power- every time we see it- brings imbalance. That balance is represented by the Light Side.

That's Star Wars- good guys and bad guys Light Side and Dark. Good/Light must defeat bad/Dark. The successful outcome of that- is balance. Complicating it beyond that is to lose your way.

__________________

"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"

That's it, man. If you want to discuss the better and lesser angels of our nature, there's probably a forum or a thread around to discuss philosophy. Or maybe you can start one. But not here in the SW forum.

To try and be fair, I'll briefly engage with the philosophical idea that the Light Side could cock balance up.

If, in some future story, we have a Jedi who actively declares that he is going on a crusade to eradicate the entire concept of evil from the cosmos for all time so that only good would ever exist... ok, THEN, that's the point where the other Jedi would be going 'whoa there...' because that could be seen as a balance breaker- evil has to be stopped, but it exists as part of the fabric of nature and can't be removed from creation.

Problem is, that's only a far more convoluted version of Anakin's story- trying to use power to bring good but ending up being evil. I would say our theoretical crusader Jedi here has gone Dark Side in any case.

What would we see on screen, anyway? Another bad guy. Back to SW basics again- good guys and bad guys. Light Side and Dark. Balance- the victory when the Light Side wins.

What we never, ever see is any indication that we should be worried that the good guys will do 'too well' and so mess up balance. Their desirable actions only ever make the balance stronger.

__________________

"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"

Originally posted by queeq SW is not a lesson in philosophy, Luminous. It's SW and SW=simple.

Like this:

Good=light side of the Force
Bad=dark side of the Force

Balance= good only = Jedi
Unbalance= bad around/in charge = Sith.

That's it, man. If you want to discuss the better and lesser angels of our nature, there's probably a forum or a thread around to discuss philosophy. Or maybe you can start one. But not here in the SW forum.

Can you really claim the philosophy of Star Wars is so simple to the point at which it shouldn't even be discussed, when your incapable of factoring the Mortis arc into your assessment of it?

Seems to be there is discussion value there, as opposed to writing it off as a weird outlier. I think Star Wars has a lot of philosophical discussion value actually, considering its grounded in metaphysical concepts.

Well it IS an outlier, because it's different to every other presentation we've seen.

That doesn't necessarily mean writing it off, though. If you think that view of things is better, that's no problem at all. I'd even agree there's a lot to discuss with that sort of philosophy. People are very much entitled to make their own creative interpretations of Star Wars.

I just don't feel it is what mainstream Star Wars is, and its canonicity is troublesome when you have two different creative takes in the same continuity.

__________________

"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"